What do people think about this DS strategy, having one nation act as banker for the DS, driving market prices sky high?
Vote on the poll above please and lets find out some player opinion
I feel this will only show a split mainly becuase most want to exploit the game when they are DS… What will happen in the future is if imployed more regularly as it will be now by DS… Simply view why not By Ds players… Then FP must be perfect in order to have a chance to win…
There is no question That it does inflate prices that the vert natsells increases gold reserves even in light of natsells spiraling the prices up even though natsells are occuring every turn…
No question this benifits the DS way more than the FP becuase the highiest selling price commodities are Controll by the DS…
No question this is Not reflective a True market conditions and the program should be changed reflective to a market based on laws of supply and demand…
There is little doubt the Players of ME games will not vote out their Cheat Code for when they play the DS from the comments I have seen on Forum…
I would only Hope that enough Players in the community would have the courage to want a Game that comes from Integrity . The Integrity with regaurds to the Market prices is Violated with a Banker nation… In time No one will play FP and no Nuetral will go FP in facing the Challenge of being perfect to win…
I don’t ask that the DS strengths be eliminated… I do not want a Cloudlord without +20 assasination … Or watered down Nazguls… I do want a Game where it’s balanced for both sides to have an equal chance to win… Banker nations subvert that and allows DS to play way less than perfect as a team.
Terry,
I play mostly Free positions. We have been discussing this on our team and I have talked it over with other friends on other teams. We feel that it will take a good team to pull off the plan as some teams walk a tightrope in supporting the strategy. We also feel there are things that can mitigate the advantage that it gives the DS. I think there are always counters. Will have to play it out to be certain.
Brad
Brad
I believe in challenges… To me there is no challenge playing a DS position any DS position where a banker strategy is used… Sure ther are some counters that could be used to lessen the effect… But it makes the DS the economics Giants from selling resources keeping market prices high even though they are selling every turn… With a banker nation Br never will drop to 1… Never… the Very natsell of bronze for example and the huge profit actaully drives bronze Higher not lower… No selling of Food increases it to 2… If sold raises gold resreves droping it to 1 one turn then back to 2 if not sold… Irreflective of food never being bought…
It should never be the FP’s problem to Fix what is broken by coming up with a counter what does not work properly.
Players in favor of keeping this strategy does so only to keep there Chances of Winning the game increasing their PRS rating while playing the DS for an easy quick game… The DS are already strong enough through good team play to be able to win every game they play through good teamwork… Why should the FP play great or perfect to have a chance against a Cheat Code…
There is no question That it does inflate prices that the vert natsells increases gold reserves even in light of natsells spiraling the prices up even though natsells are occuring every turn…
Actually there is. That’s what I am anxious about. I suspect that it might, but so far haven’t seen definitive proof yet.
As to whether or not people vote because they want to “abuse” it is a different question. If you assume people answered the question, without any other bias (and there could be bias either way) then so far it’s pretty even and if nothing else gives us some information there.
Clint (GM)
Clint
I use the words Cheat Code becuase it manipultes a market in such a way it’s truly broken from my observations…
Now it’s Good your monitoring this closely… It’s used in Both gm 51 and 37 …
I know you will act accordingly if it adversely effects the game…
I could only hope that players would encourage you to do so. I would like the Game to remain the most complex game of Chess it really is already… No need for something like this to give a great game system even a temporary black eye…
My only experience with this was Game 16, so here is what little I gleaned from it. First off, most everyone knows how to start it going. It is possible, over time, for the economy to catch up IF the ds nations stop contributing to the bank. In Game 16, every nation didn’t always contribute, but the fact is that we had someone sending the bank money just about every turn. In this way, we ensured that the prices stayed high.
Anyone that was DS in 16 feel free to correct me on this one…
Wade
Terry,
As I said I play Free most of the time. Obviously we have yet to have this used against us. However I know a lot of smart players and players who have played a long time. I wonder why it has taken 20 years for this unbeatable system to come to the forefront of discussion. I accept that you are whole heartedly certain of what you say being correct. Having never had it used against us I can only accept your sincerety; however as I said we don’t feel that this is insurmountable and will have to be beaten by it to feel that way. I still do not believe the game is broken.
Brad
I’m playing FP and it (or something to the same effect) is being used agianst me, and I’m playing DS and using it, which I dislike. I don’t like it either way. Ithink all future games in grudge I will request beforehand it agreed on not to be used.
John, I think you have a great point there. In grudge games, it can be agreed up-front that it not be used. (Or if both teams want to try it and try to fight it, then of course it can be agreed to be allowed).
Dave
Dave et. al.
But what is the definition of this strategy? Clint publicly says his DS team in G25 did not utilize the strategy, yet we saw three gold shipments on T1 to one nation (and assuming you see half the rumors…). I have to believe Clint(player), because Clint(GM) has far too much at stake in his business to lie about it. Prices are now about normal on T9, so perhaps the DS did have a specific plan for one of their nations to spend all that gold, and it has indeed all come to pass…? Clint says they did not use the DS central bank strategy, yet the effect on overall mkt prices was identical, and the ‘damage’ was done. So again I say, how do you define the strategy, pregame, when you are agreeing to outlaw it?
Drew
Nice tag-line, Drew!!!
Wade
With the gun-grabbers due to claim prominent positions in the upcoming Congress, I feel it my duty to remind everyone of this little ol’ portion of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights…
As the game 25 is still on it’s hard to comment so, as agreed, I can talk about that after the game with the opposition as noted.
Clint (player)
As for agreeing that can be done. There are many examples of this we’ve moderated. For example No One Ring victory was done in a few games. In that situation we had a game where players searched for the One Ring - it annoyed the opposition (but was within the rules as there was no plan to win with it - if they had we’d have adjudicated a loss). Ditto 1000 GB games etc.
So it can be done - I can even advise wording etc but like most rules it can be open to abuse or other such. (Eg No Drop GB games had players drop for “ethical” as well as real-world reasons against the rules so…)
Let’s give this a go as an example wording: If you have it that no one nation can receive more than 50k gold in a turn that would probably cover most situations. (You could add that no one nation is allowed to receive more 150k gold during a 5 turn period but that might be dangerous?)
Clint (GM)
Oh I can think of all sorts of rules-lawyer type wording, e.g. restricting gold shipments to some multiple of a nation’s deficit; I certainly don’t like any restriction based upon some arbitrary number like 50k per turn. (For that matter, sending 50k per turn for the first 3 turns to equal 150k in someone’s treasury on T3 may very well do the mkt-price trick anyway…)
But as you point out, any restrictive wording could, potentially, cause danger to a very poor nation in a legitimate need. Agreeing to no One Ring victories or preventing bug hunts with nation ratios is very straightforward. Trying to regulate economies within the game mechanics and specific nation’s treasuries is a lot trickier.
True - but we could get there.
Clint
Clint. You’re welcome to hack into Game 51. Turn 1 market prices are about 2x turn 0 (LE/BR/ST just under 2x, Food at 1, everything else over 2x). We’ve all seen enough Turn 0 and Turn 1 markets.
Side note on those who think it would be difficult for the DS to do. The only games I’ve actually seen it myself have all been independent games where teams of virtual strangers did it right away. There are other issues of non-cooperation and poor communication, but a single 948 seems easy enough thus far…
Brad
Clint
This restriction would be a Bandaid on the greater problem… The problem is One Nations gold reserves has to great of importance on the program that generates market prices… I aggree that for the Broad market price influence a Greater percieved Treasury should increase market prices but to about 1/10th of what it’s influence is now… The individual commidities such as Iron would have the greatiest price change then by the buys and sells…
Players already have learned long ago how to repair a crushed economy by use of team buyouts of the entire commodity the merchants have such as mithril and steel for huge profits… This has been done many times and is pretty standard tactics in 1000 games… I don’t believe the 1650/2950 player community as a whole are as well intuned with how to develope true sound econmics for thier nations… I can attest I learned more about Me economics from my few games since my return to ME than I did from years and years in 1650…
I would compltely takeout the One Nation Factor from market prices and have the program base it solely on a total of all nations gold reserves… This alone would return the game to normal and allow true economic warefare on Both sides… The DS should Learn How to Win the Game without a Banker strategy Not The FP learn how to beat it… Or else why did the game Designers Give the DS team 2 emmy artifacts and all those agent’s agent artifacts and stealth artifacts to rob the Fat Cow FP to begin with!..
To limit Gold transfers could spell doom for Nations Like Dragonlord in particular… No resource base I mean None… Powerful Characters that are expensive to maintain… Heavily fortified PC that eat the very tax base they protect and could easily have a -50k or higher deficit in 1 turn yet still retain a MT…
I’m looking for a Fair game to all sides and banker Nation effect is Not needed under any circumstances and is completely unheathly to develope players skills… I am currently playing Dragon lord in game 35 and I’m in no danger of being eliminated. Heck I say flat out the FP can’t knock me out of the Game… I do not need a gold shipment every turn to stay in that Game and No banker Nation is being used by our team!
So my Qoute to all the DS saying I should learn how to overcome a Banker strategy as FP… I suggest you learn how to beat me playing any postion without it!
The problem with “taking out the 1 nation banker” is this: Why was it “put in” in the first place? Primary information is required… Clint can run a test game to convince himself that the market behaves this way, THEN he has to ask the creators of the game “Why?” before doing anything to the code.
Brad
Brad
I think it’s also important for us to remember when that code/ formula was written… This was on a Business Machine before all us computer Geeks thought it would be cool to own our own… Back during that time the processors and storgae capacities of the main phrame computers couldn’t touch the computer I writing you this email from…
I believe to speed up the turn processing time to run this very program meant some sacrifices … So taking the nation with the greatiest Gold reserve would be a logical choice to determine the economic power of the entire game…
Back then also It was play by mail… we exchanged 3x5 cards for diplos… we exchanged mailing addresses… coordinating anything between 2 players was a huge challenge. So the programers probably suggested this would never be found out by players anyways… Could the designers and programers forseen how computers or communication of players in todays Game…
I am quite sure the designers Had No intention of The DS becoming the Econmic power through player manipulation by simply sending huge gold amounts to one nation… Even where They allowed it in 1000 it was becuase of The Nations economic power (tax Base!) of the 2 kingdoms did they allow those nations to write a Hard order requiring and extremely Skill character to do succesfully to have a very minor impact on the 1000 economy…
I don’t necessarily believe a Consulation is necessery from the Creators is necessary to fix 25 + year old program to keep This game working properly from the effect of a Banker nation manipultation… If they truly wanted the DS to be able to do that they would give the DS in 1650 and 2950 the same orders North and South Kingdom have to do exactly what that order does in that scenerio.